Friday, May 21, 2010

So. We have artificial life. Kickass. But wait, what's this? Why, right on cue, if it isn't a bunch of showboating, pious old cretins in dresses wagging their fingers at the presumptuousness of scientists, and insisting that the creation of life is the sole purview of some invisible magic man in the sky they seem to believe in.

"We look at science with great interest. But we think above all about the meaning that must be given to life," said Fisichella, who heads Vatican's Pontifical Academy for Life. "We can only reach the conclusion that we need God, the origin of life."

Now, one could respond to that in the usual way, by pointing out that before they can make claims like that about their God, they should prove the old spectre exists in the first frickin' place.

But of course, we don't even need to go there. Because the very idea of an organized crime syndicate responsible for enabling and protecting the largest and most appalling epidemic of child rape in the history of civilization having the audacity to lecture anyone, let alone scientists, on "the ethical dimension" of anyfuckingthing, is quite simply gobsmacking. Now, at least, you know why those guys wear those huge flowing robes. They need them to contain their colossal solid brass balls!

So all that's left is to give this little ditty another airing, I do believe. Take it away, Timbo.

PS: The comments on that Yahoo news article are gold. The RCC has a serious public image crisis. I wonder why...

Nothing like the slippery slope fallacy to get the fear response going. That is the RCC's stock in trade thru-out is glorious history. That these deluded holy men can still claim moral authority for anything is appalling to any thinking person outside the cult.

Way to go Tim. The only proper response to these godly people is ridicule. We now need a muslim version to be fair. Unfortunately political and media tolerance of the extremist members of that cult, has allowed them to be disproportionately dangerous.

I was so put off by your first sentence about cretins in dresses that I couldn't even read the rest of your post. What's wrong with dresses? Why is it that you believe a symbol of femininity is so inherently degrading that you can use it to insult someone or to degrade a person's credibility?

This was especially bad because it followed a really well written post by tracieh about how the reason Christians are down on "the gays" is that lying with a man as a man lies with a woman is to "reduce" a man to the status of a lowly woman, not because there's anything inherently wrong with gay sex.

You should be ashamed of yourself. I'm certainly ashamed to see you writing in the name of atheism. Please avoid writing in the future until you can get your bigotry under control.

Either Daniel's comment is a joke, or he seriously has his head on backwards.

Listen to the song. If you are more offended by my remarks than you are by the Catholic Church's history of child molestation, then you're as evil as they are. Please avoid visiting this blog in the future until you manage to stop being such an utter piece of fucking shit.

To paraphrase Edward R. Murrow, I can't help but notice that your ad-hominem attack failed to address the actual issue. Worse, you're putting words in my mouth. I never suggested that anything you did could compare to the horror that is the Catholic church, but I ALSO think it's a problem that you've denigrated women in your attempt to point out that horror. Don't you see how that takes strength from of your argument? Worse, when you respond to critique with an ad-hominem attack, it makes you look angry, petty and guilty. In other words, you're not being a good spokesman for this right now. I'm asking you, one atheist to another: Please do better when you write high-profile blog pieces. We're all counting on you.

Except I haven't, other than in the bizarre universe between your ears, where you've chosen to interpret an innocuous snarky statement in an extremely bizarre way entirely at odds with the actual content and meaning of the statement, in order to satisfy a sense of self-righteous moral indignation unique to you. Contrary to what you might think, you are not the only sensitive, intelligent person who reads this blog, and if there had been anything remotely derogatory towards women in my remarks, you had better believe that all of our regulars — especially Jen and Tracie — would have nailed it at once and given me a thorough coals-raking for it by now. This has not happened, for the simple reason that your interpretation of my remarks and their intent exists only in your head.

when you respond to critique with an ad-hominem attack, it makes you look angry, petty and guilty.

Just as you are not as smart as you think you are in spotting misogyny, you also do not know what an ad hominem is. And it's not an ad hominem to tell someone they're being stupid, especially when they're being stupid. That you seem to think you are entitled to a respectful response to your "critique" when it was, itself, nothing more than a woefully misguided and insulting exercise in concern trolling, does not inspire me to revise my opinion of said stupidity in a favorable way. If what's on this blog doesn't meet your criteria of PC acceptability in all things, there is nothing obligating you to keep reading it.

Ok, so here's the thing. I'm sorry. I made the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error>fundamental attribution error</a> in reverse. I forgot that people see what I present without the context they would get from knowing me. Today, I presented as a troll (by acting like one) when that's not what I am.

What I am is a person with a really important thing to communicate and I'm afraid I may have ruined my chance to do so here by communicating it so poorly (Today's poor communication was brought to you by "the attack," which is NEVER effective or productive). I really wish I'd started this conversation differently both because I feel bad for contributing negativity to your day and because I think it's important that you (and your readers) understand what I was trying to accomplish.

I feel like feminism has moved our culture to the point where women can be the equals of men, but it a slightly missed-the-point sort of way. Women can equal men by taking "male" jobs or wear "male" clothes but being "femmy" is still a lowly-ranked thing. If you want examples, look at a recent ad slogan by Dockers (Wear The Pants) or a recent TV spot for the Motorola Droid (It's not a princess, it's a robot).

I want us to be in a place where wearing a dress is simply one of several respectable ways to be a human being, so I object when the first thing you criticize about the priesthood is the dresses. That's about the only thing about the priesthood that ISN'T a problem.

Does that make a little more sense about why it's not just something in the bizarre universe between my ears?

Well, Daniel, I appreciate that we can now talk about this in a bit more even tempered a fashion. And I hope you can understand that, while I'm totally down with receiving legitimate criticisms, it tends to bring out the worst in me to be instructed to stop writing unless I am prepared to conform my views to another's.

It is true that there are many expressions, including unintentional ones, that can be demeaning to women in a way that has become distressingly acculturated. And those things deserved discussion and a healthy beatdown when I occur. All I can say about my own crack was that the butt of the joke was the priesthood and its pompous cosplay, and not the idea of dresses or femininity. (Having worn a skirt myself — for guys they call them kilts — I can attest to the comfort factor of a good dress.)

In short, you just way misinterpreted me, and it might be because you're a recent reader here and haven't gotten used to my snarky personality and irreverent sense of humor in its fullest flower. I hate biting someone's head off and I'm sorry I got to that point, but if there's a chance to mend fences and start over, I'm grateful for that opportunity too.

PLEASE NOTE: The Atheist Experience has moved to a new location, and this blog is now closed to comments. To participate in future discussions, please visit http://www.freethoughtblogs.com/axp.

This blog encourages believers who disagree with us to comment. However, anonymous comments are disallowed to weed out cowardly flamers who hide behind anonymity. Commenters will only be banned when they've demonstrated they're nothing more than trolls whose behavior is intentionally offensive to the blog's readership.

Email policy

All emails sent to the program at the tv[at]atheist-community[dot]org address become the property of the ACA, and the desire for a reply is assumed. Note that this reply could take the form of a public response on the show or here on the blog. In those cases, we will never include the correspondent's address, but will include names unless we deem it inappropriate. If you absolutely do not wish for us to address your email publicly, please include a note to that effect (like "private response only" or "not for publication" or "if you post this on the blog please don't use my name") somewhere in the letter.

Google Analytics script

Subscribe To

AE and Related Sites

PLEASE NOTE: The Atheist Experience has moved to a new location, and this blog is now closed to comments. To participate in future discussions, please visit http://www.freethoughtblogs.com/axp.The Atheist Experience is a weekly live call-in television show sponsored by the Atheist Community of Austin. This independently-run blog (not sponsored by the ACA) features contributions from current and former hosts and co-hosts of the show.